On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you are concerned about the analyze time between 10, 50 and 150, I > would suggest that you are concerned about the wrong things. Remember
I can't rule that out. What things do you think I should be concerned about? ISTM that default_statistics_target trades off ANALYZE time and query planning time vs. the possibility of better plans. If the former considerations are not an issue for dst = 50, then maybe we should emit 50 by default. But the limited evidence that has been published in this forum thus far doesn't support that contention. >> > It also seems unlikely that you would hit 256MB of checkpoint segments >> > on a 100MB database before checkpoint_timeout and if you did, you >> > certainly did need them. >> >> So why do we have this parameter at all? > > Excellent question, for a different thread :) I think the rhetorical answer is "so that we don't fill up the disk", which gets us back to database size. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
